]]>Mac computers are now the preferred choice for young professionals, including young lawyers and law students. And many other firms have become Mac enthusiasts. Whether you love the interface, the physical design, or whether you got fed up with the Blue Screen of Death and slow forced updates, it’s great to know that more legal tech developers are bringing their products to the Mac platform.

Enterprise Adoption is Growing

According to the 2017 Annual Jamf Trends Survey, Mac and iOS device adoption is increasing at the enterprise level and overall. Nearly half of organizations surveyed (44%) offer employees a choice between Mac and PC, with 73% of employees wanting a Mac if given a choice. And in the 2015 Legal Tech Survey conducted by the ABA’s Legal Technology Resource Center, 8.1% of respondents reported that they use a Mac in their law practice. This number is growing and is slightly higher than Mac’s overall market share (7.3%). That growth is significant and real.

Legal Writing on Macs

Legal writing is an area where Mac-based lawyers have been clamoring for new tech tools for years. Since lawyers spend so much of their time writing in MS Word, there’s been frustration that some of the most lauded tools for writers were not available for Mac users. In the past year, that has changed:

Evaluating Your Options

Still, many lawyers think they don’t need any software other than MS Word for legal writing. In fact, I believed that myself until I tried it. Though MS Word has improved over the years and I’m pretty good at wildcards and find-and-replace, there’s still so much more that I could be doing to raise the quality of my documents—and do it faster. Everyone can benefit from cutting the amount of time spent proofreading and editing. So which add-in, or combination of add-ins, is right for your needs?

Your purchasing decisions will be driven by the challenges you face and the work you do. The four most common challenges are:

No single add-in covers every aspect of legal proofreading and editing. So you should consider where you need the most assistance, what programs you have in place, and how much you’re willing to spend. Since all of the options run within MS Word, they work well together if you choose to use more than one.

WordRake

Drafting and editing is the most difficult part of any legal writing assignment. It doesn’t matter whether you’re drafting a brief or a contract, it is a feat to craft something that is concise, uncomplex, and not jargon-filled.

WordRake is an editing tool that helps make legal documents shorter and more readable. It improves legal writing style by simplifying and clarifying text, cutting legalese, and recommending plain English replacements. WordRake identifies commonly used legal words and phrases, such as “in addition to,” “pursuant to,” and “in accordance with”—and replaces them with simpler words such as “besides” and “under.” WordRake also fixes passive phrasing and removes redundancies. The user experience is delightful, with no learning required, and all recommendations are shown at once using the track changes feature. Then you need to review each change in context and accept or reject them one by one.

WordRake was first released for PCs in 2012. The Mac-compatible version has been available as a native application for users with Office 2016 since April 2018.

PerfectIt

Proofreading, polishing, checking for consistency, and following the leading legal writing style and citation guides is a required part of finalizing any kind of document. It’s time-consuming but necessary. Unfortunately, this part is usually left to the last minute and done poorly. Automated tools are more accurate than any human review.

PerfectIt is a proofreading tool that checks for legal-specific typos, enforces consistency, and conforms your writing to the guidance found in The Red Book: A Manual On Legal Style by Bryan Garner and Black’s Law Dictionary. It will also find formatting, spacing, spelling, and capitalization errors in Bluebook citations.

PerfectIt excels at the tedious task of consistency-checking. Reviewing for consistency requires checking for capitalization of words, phrases, and headings; punctuation of bullet points and lists; hyphenation of prefixes, suffixes, terms of art, and defined terms; paired punctuation, such as quotation marks; and presentation of numbers. It groups consistency errors together and guides the reviewer through each one, using familiar spell-check-like functionality and informative commentary. The reviewer can fix each error with a single click.

PerfectIt was first released for PCs in 2009. The Mac-compatible version became available through the Office Store on June 26, 2018.

Contract Companion

If you are a transactional lawyer, then the accurate substantive use of defined terms and cross-references will be among your main priorities for editing tools. Contract Companion is a drafting and proofreading assistant that helps.

Substantive defined terms checking is the process of checking each definition for proper use. It’s time-consuming because it requires reviewing the definition and use together even though they appear in different locations. Contract Companion will check for defined terms that are used but not defined; defined but not used; and defined more than once or inconsistently. It also sorts defined terms and helps you review based on risk.

For cross-references, Contract Companion will help you confirm that each cross-reference accurately refers to the correct clause or section indicated; and references a section, chapter, or term that actually exists in the document. It provides checking by allowing you to click on the reference, which takes you to the original location. It also offers the option to assign the cross-references (which simplifies Microsoft’s built-in feature).

Contract Companion excels at ensuring consistent substantive use of defined terms and legally-operative phrases. Its two outstanding features are consistent phrase checking that recognizes when you have used similar words but used “of” rather than “and” or have left a comma out, etc.; and risk assessment review and prioritization.

Contract Companion was released for PCs in 2012. The Mac-compatible version was released through the Office Store in April 2017.

Conclusion

It’s an exciting time for lawyers with Macs. Some of the most-discussed proofreading and editing tools are now available. So think about what aspects of proofreading and editing have the biggest impact on your time, take advantage of the free trials offered by all these programs, and find the product that will help you get that time back today.

]]>https://www.lawtechnologytoday.org/2018/06/legal-writing-tools-for-mac-lawyers/feed/0Fax Machine vs eFaxhttps://www.lawtechnologytoday.org/2017/12/fax-machine-v-efax/
https://www.lawtechnologytoday.org/2017/12/fax-machine-v-efax/#respondWed, 06 Dec 2017 16:00:00 +0000http://www.lawtechnologytoday.org/?p=7909Much of the business world has long since given up on the idea of fax machines, but can law professionals follow suit?

]]>Much of the business world has long since given up on the idea of fax machines. Those old, clunky, and noisy things that transmit images of documents oh-so-slowly. But can we, as attorneys, really give up this technological relic in the name of efficiency?

The Traditional Fax Machine

When you send a document via fax machine, to another physical fax machine, a direct connection is created between the two devices that simply cannot be hacked. It’s not digital. It’s not encrypted. It’s just a very slow, secure, point-to-point connection. To intercept your fax, someone would have to quite literally tap the phone line.

This is in direct contrast to email, for example, where your document could be intercepted at any number of servers along the way, hacked directly from your computer, or pulled from a compromised account. Many lawyers have taken advantage of this added security, treating the fax machine as the most secure way of quickly getting a document to a recipient. But that may have come to an end and all lawyers should be conscious of the new reality, where sending a fax may not be anywhere near as secure as it used to be.

The Advances in eFax Technology

A majority of recipients, including many law firms, have switched to using an eFax. This innovative technology has many advantages. To name a few: you no longer tie up a phone line; you can send and receive multiple faxes at once, sending a fax can be as simple as sending an email or drag and dropping a file into a web interface, the logs are electronic, received faxes can auto-convert to PDF, OCR themselves (Optical Character Recognition, which makes the documents searchable), and land in your email inbox like your other emails. The conveniences, of which I only named a few, abound—as do the dangers.

The eFax needs to be taken apart in order to truly see where the security starts and ends.

Sending an eFax

For the purposes of this article, we will assume that your own file repository system is secure and that until you went to send the eFax, you have not compromised your files in any way. Now you have to take your file (presumably a PDF in most cases), and transmit it to your eFax server. Most eFax providers offer multiple ways of uploading a file for sending. This is the first potential danger point.

In an ideal circumstance (from a security perspective), you enter your fax sending portal through a secure log-in (perhaps even with two-factor authentication), after which you upload your file and set up the transmission through a secure connection. Unfortunately, your eFax provider probably wanted to make things fast and easy. To that end, you are likely able to send an eFax by emailing it to a special transmission server, where the email address itself directs the sending.

So, for example, if you wanted to send a fax to 212-555-1212, you may be able to simply compose an email to 2125551212@your-efax-send-service.com and throw in the document to be faxed as an attachment. I’ve seen many lawyers do this, reasoning that they were sending a secure fax, rather than an insecure email. What the lawyer fails to realize is that before that fax is ever sent by the secure eFax server, the document has already traveled through an unencrypted email.

But let’s assume for the moment that you are careful, and only upload the documents to your eFax service through a secure connection, or even go the extra mile and use an old Panasonic fax machine you never had the heart to throw away. Are your transmissions safe and secure now? Well, maybe… It all depends on what the recipient is using.

Receiving an eFax

An analysis on receiving an eFax will result in similar conclusions. The eFax server itself needs to be secure and encrypted—not a major problem as most of the commercial vendors are. But what happens next? How does the recipient retrieve that fax? Most recipients, including most lawyers, have the incoming fax emailed by the eFax server, as a PDF attachment, to their email inbox. Convenient? Absolutely. Secure? Not even close.

While many more lawyers are cognizant of the idea of not sending PDFs containing confidential information via email, even to transmit an eFax, most simply don’t seem to notice the fact that the document which the sender may have meant to arrive with great security, has just been automatically converted into an insecure and unencrypted PDF. What can you do? Unfortunately, give up some convenience.

The Compromise and Duty to Inquire

The beauty of eFax is that it is all software run. That means that you can configure your notifications in such a way that while you can have an email sent to you alerting of a new fax receipt, you can disable the feature that would allow the document to be attached to that email as a PDF. Rather, you would have to click a link in the email, log in to your eFax service, and manually download your document. But that only takes care of everything on your end…

The main takeaway here is not just on securing your eFax service. More importantly, it is to be conscious of the fact that sending something by fax, even if you don’t use an eFax, is no longer a means of assured security. If you transmit a document to someone and the contents are confidential enough in nature, don’t just rely on the fax machine to provide security. Inquire how your recipient receives their faxes. Otherwise, you may be inadvertently causing those documents to arrive to the recipient in an insecure email without even thinking about what you might have just done.

]]>https://www.lawtechnologytoday.org/2017/12/fax-machine-v-efax/feed/0Law Meets Virtual Realityhttps://www.lawtechnologytoday.org/2017/07/law-meets-virtual-reality/
https://www.lawtechnologytoday.org/2017/07/law-meets-virtual-reality/#commentsThu, 27 Jul 2017 12:00:00 +0000http://www.lawtechnologytoday.org/?p=7376Klaris Law Firm shines some light on some of the issues VR content makers are likely to face in the future.

The end-user applications of virtual reality are endless—and so is the list of possible legal issues that may arise with these developing technologies.While the legal issues inherent in virtual reality have not yet been litigated, similar questions have arisen in video games, film, and advertising. The legal analysis that has already taken place in these mediums, by analogy, can be used not only to ask the right questions in VR, but also to predict solutions that both effectively protect users and safeguard the free and open development of a fascinating technology.

In this short video, we raise some of the issues we think VR content makers are likely to face.

]]>The annual Consumer Electronics Show is filled with new and proposed products that will fill the shelves of your local electronics shop (or online store) in the next six to 12 months. Some are amazing; some are visionary; some are outlandish; some are all of the above.

One of the products that caught my attention at the 2017 show is a USB storage device that claims to be “the world’s first unlimited capacity USB drive,” called “Moore.” I’m still not sure which of the above categories it fits into yet.

If you’re like me, you probably have thousands of data files saved on various internal and external hard drives. Currently, between active files and backups, I have a half-dozen hard drives on the desk in my office with the ability to hold 12 TB of data. The idea of “unlimited” storage in a single device is very appealing. However, even if you’ve had zero physics courses in high school or college, you’re probably wondering how “unlimited” storage could be possible.

As shown at CES, the device itself looks like every other thumb drive you have ever used. It has the ability to store 64 GB of data on the device itself—the “infinite” storage comes in the form of cloud storage. So, you would have access to any of the unlimited amount of data that you have stored on the company’s cloud server as long as you have an Internet connection. Without an Internet connection, you’re limited to the 64 GB of data that Moore can store locally.

The promised innovation of “unlimited capacity” would come from how Moore manages the local files versus the files stored in the cloud. Moore promises to use “machine learning” (aka artificial intelligence) to “know” which files you are most likely to use and to have them available on the device. It will “learn,” over time, which files you use most often and make them available on the local device, shifting other files that you use less often back to the cloud. A representative at CES also said that Moore would also be able to learn to make other files that are related to the ones you access most often, available locally on the device.

While the company claims that you can have access to your files with or without an Internet connection, this is a bit of an oversell. Sure, you can access the locally-stored files without an Internet connection. As you probably guessed, you cannot access any of the cloud-stored files without an Internet connection. If you’re on an airplane and hadn’t planned ahead by storing specific files on the Moore USB thumb drive, you’d have to hope that Moore had learned enough about your file-using habits to have the files you really wanted to work on available on the device. If it didn’t, you’re out of luck accessing that file until you’re connected to the Internet again. One bonus of Moore over any other USB drive is that any changes you make to files stored on the Moore device will be synced with the versions stored in the cloud the next time you connect to the Internet.

What remains unclear, however, is how the initial decisions are made on which data to store locally and which get immediately shunted to the cloud.

Data stored on the company’s cloud servers is protected using AES 128 bit encryption. In transit between the cloud servers and the USB device, the data is protected using the HTTPS secure transfer protocol. The USB device itself also uses AES 128 bit encryption and can be password protected. (In a 2012 article, EE Times estimated that it would take a supercomputer over a billion years to check all the possible key combinations of AES 128 bit encryption.)

The device’s name is derived from “Moore’s Law,” in which Intel co-founder Gordon Moore observed that the number of transistors per square inch on integrated circuits had doubled every year since their invention and would likely continue for the foreseeable future. (Moore’s estimation actually proved to be a little low. The current rate is that transistors are doubling once every eighteen months.)

The product remains in development and is not yet available for retail purchase. Pricing has not yet been set for the device or monthly cloud storage. Depending on the final pricing, the device could be useful as an encrypted, password-protected, USB storage device to protect client-confidential information… the encrypted cloud storage would be a bonus.

]]>https://www.lawtechnologytoday.org/2017/03/moore-usb-drive/feed/0Enhanced Legality With Augmented and Virtual Realityhttps://www.lawtechnologytoday.org/2017/02/augmented-and-virtual-reality/
https://www.lawtechnologytoday.org/2017/02/augmented-and-virtual-reality/#commentsThu, 02 Feb 2017 13:00:00 +0000http://www.lawtechnologytoday.org/?p=6620What would the legal consequences be if an action carried out in the virtual world had very real implications in the physical world?

As every law student knows, there can be no legal or criminal ramifications to mere thoughts. We are free to consider, ruminate, or fantasize to our heart’s desire about committing various wrong-doings with absolutely no legal consequences. As long as we don’t turn these thoughts into action, it’s not a matter for the law.

Let’s take this premise one step further. Say we express our private thoughts using technology, whilst still keeping them “private.” For example, what if in the confines of a virtual reality (VR) game, we were to vent all of our pent-up rage at an avatar representing a boss or manager—sort of what we can see in the HBO’s popular series, Westworld. From a legal standpoint, as long as these violent intentions do not transcend into the real world, there is no legal (criminal or tort) liability. In other words, if retained within our own private world, even though expressed virtually, these will likely be legally categorized as non-actionable, private thoughts, like so many rants scribbled into a personal diary.

Now, what would the legal consequences be if an action carried out in the virtual world had very real, albeit unintentional, implications in the physical world? Complicating things further, what if such action was carried out not with VR, but with augmented reality (AR)? Unlike VR, AR doesn’t replace the real world with a simulated virtual one; rather it augments the real, physical world with computer-generated sensory input, like sounds or graphics. Would we still be exempt from any legal liability for such actions? Or might we unexpectedly find ourselves on the wrong side of the law?

This question is no longer a theoretical one. The evolution of VR and AR has raised new legal dilemmas both for users and product manufacturers, especially in the gaming industry. And some of these dilemmas could soon turn out to be, quite literally, game changers.

Take for example the 2016 smash-hit Pokémon Go. The game took the world by storm, attracting millions of players of all ages to partake in the massive pocket monster hunt by using their smartphones to “catch ’em all.” The app took advantage of GPS tracking devices already pre-installed on every smartphone today to locate the player’s exact geo-position. Using AR technology, the app added a fictional layer on top of the real picture generated from the phone’s camera, superimposing the image of digital Pokémons scampering around the player. Within days of launching, complaints cropped up about Pokémon-obsessed players trespassing onto private property, causing nuisances near private residences, and acting disrespectfully in sensitive locations, including the Holocaust Museum and government facilities. The Pokémon frenzy got so intense, players began risking their real-world lives, even venturing into marked-off mine fields just to catch one more.

Pokémon Go is certainly not the only example of the increasingly blurry borders between virtual and real-world actions. There is a disconcerting number of women complaining of being sexually harassed by male players in virtual chat rooms and VR games. Naturally, this harassment doesn’t consist of any physical, real-world contact. Rather, digital images of virtual women avatars played by real, physical women players, are being assaulted by male avatars being played by male players. Unfortunately, sexual harassment has and continues to be a persistent problem in online gaming communities. But whereas previously limited to verbal or visual messages, now, with VR technology becoming even more immersive, many feel that virtual abuse is beginning to feel just as real as physical assault.

Whether it’s a matter of criminal law or torts, the responsibility of players seems pretty straightforward. Real-world laws should apply to actions taken in the virtual and augmented ones, if and when there are real-world implications. In such case, a Pokémon Go user who enters private property without permission should be held legally accountable for trespassing. The same applies to a sexual offender if such offense is proven.

A more interesting question is the responsibility of the company behind the product used in violation of the law. So far, at least two lawsuits (one of which is a class action) have been filed in US courts, alleging that the owners of Pokémon Go, Niantic, and Nintendo, are responsible for damages caused by game players. Can these companies claim that no such liability should exist considering that these illegal actions were committed by players acting on their own volition? Is the legal disclaimer, which all Pokémon Go players must consent to before downloading and using the game, sufficient to preclude any legal responsibility of the companies? These questions have yet to be decided in court, but should be taken under serious consideration going forward by companies developing VR and AG games.

The reason for such caution goes to the core of VR and AR games. One of the reasons they are so appealing is that they provide a more enhanced and immersive experience, one in which the border between the “real world” and the simulated or augmented one becomes blurred. This is not a bad thing, per se. A common reaction by people who have tried such games is a positive feeling of being deeply engrossed and involved in the game. As the graphics, audio, and the use of multi-sensor machines continue to improve, we are going to see games offering even more enhanced sensations and immersion. But this is precisely where these companies should take extra care: the more immersed the player feels, the more likely that the lines between what happens in the virtual world (i.e. catching Pokémon) and what’s prohibited in the real world (i.e. entering private property while catching a Pokémon) would become obscured, potentially causing wide-spread legal infractions and subsequent legal actions.

This concern applies as much to large gaming companies as it does to young startups taking their first steps in the gaming world. It’s not uncommon to see promising entrepreneurs with great ideas ultimately fail because their product had serious legal and regulatory burdens which were insufficiently considered at the early product-design stages, when there was less at stake and when meaningful preventative steps could have been taken to overcome or even avoid such hurdles altogether.

Let’s return to Pokémon Go to illustrate this point. One possible solution to the trespassing and nuisance issue would be to provide the option of opting out of including one’s GPS location in the game, allowing people to control whether or not their property is included in the scope of the game’s borders. Then, if it so happened that there was a Poke-stop station placed on your property, attracting multitudes of Pokemon-hunting players to your doorstep, you as a landowner could request to have the geo-tag on your property removed from the game, and this would delete it off the game’s map. This seems like a legally reasonable solution. However, for such an option to exist, it would need to be integrated into the product at early stages of development and design, thus allowing for smooth and easy post-launch modifications without jeopardizing the functionality of the game or the enjoyment of the players.

Indeed, the complexities of the above analysis especially when limited to the virtual reality world (a world in which physical damages will be hard to identify or quantify), may ultimately lead to the conclusion that our current legal paradigms, be it civil or criminal, are ill-equipped at their core to deal with the new world order that will reign inside the virtual medium. The exciting thing about that, is that we may find ourselves legislating from scratch the do’s and don’ts of that other world. In the meantime, game developers may often find that legal solutions are not particularly difficult to implement if considered early on. Although focused on the virtual layers, game designers have much to gain from thinking about the additional layer of legal considerations during the critical early stages of development.

]]>Lawyers’ professional use of mobile devices has been consistently strong since at least 2011.[1] Ninety percent of lawyers use a smartphone for law-related tasks, with email ranking as the most popular activity. With near ubiquity of smartphones in our culture, that finding is not surprising. What is surprising, however, is that these lawyers may also be using their smartphones for dictating sensitive client information, without thinking about the potential security risks to them and their clients.

The problem is that smartphones were not designed for professional dictation. While convenient, in some cases the devices can create inefficiencies, leave client information vulnerable and may lead to inaccuracies in the resulting documentation, especially if the voice recording apps are not properly designed for fast-paced legal workflows.

A better alternative for document creation through dictation is to utilize a dedicated, secure, professional voice recorder that still allows the attorney to use a smartphone to review client or case data and other information, but does not interrupt their workflow or create risks. A dedicated recording device also helps the lawyer communicate more effectively with colleagues and staff, and offers storage and battery life benefits that smartphones typically cannot match.

Smartphones Convenient, But Lack Key Features

Clients may be located across the street, or across the world, and face-to-face meetings are an essential part of the legal profession. Staying mobile means lawyers require technology that allows them to be productive wherever and whenever they are traveling.

The benefits of being able to work from anywhere with a smartphone, however, are offset by small screens and inability to dictate while multitasking. For example, when lawyers are reviewing an email or PDF document, with some voice recording apps, they must switch back and forth between the email and the voice recorder app while dictating. Printing the documents, in many situations, is simply not an option.

Switching between apps, apart from being inefficient and irritating to the lawyer, also creates data accuracy risks. Attorneys must rely on their memory about the information they read in the email before switching to the recorder app. If the attorney doesn’t correctly remember what they read, then they must go back to correct it, hopefully before the client or another lawyer or judge sees it. If not, the error can result in wasted billing hours or, at worst, a lost client and damage to the firm’s reputation. A 2010 study even found that clerical errors were one of the top 15 most common reasons for a legal malpractice suit to be filed against an attorney.[2]

Dedicated Recording Device Offers Efficiency

A dedicated professional recorder means lawyers never have to take their eyes off what they are reviewing, whether that is their smartphone, a paper document or a law book.

Furthermore, dedicated dictation devices offer data security and features that make dictation even more convenient and aligned with the law firm’s workflows than some smartphone recording apps. For example, professional dedicated recorders, unlike most smartphones, protect recordings with the highest level of encryption to date—256 bit—compliant with the AES (Advanced Encryption Standard). Files are encrypted in real-time, which means even if the recorder is lost or stolen and its memory card removed, the recordings would still be protected. Data confidentiality is further protected on professional dedicated recorders through a four-digit PIN code required to access files or play recordings.

Some mobile handheld recorders are designed with smartphone connectivity features so recordings can be securely transferred directly from the device to a cloud-based server where it can be accessed by a transcriptionist or administrative assistant. The lawyer does not need to open a separate application to attach and share recordings, further improving efficiency.

Sound, Memory And Battery Also Factors

Apart from the document creation benefits, many attorneys who dictate leverage dedicated voice recorders for creating memos, internal firm emails, task lists and sharing other information in a fraction of the time of typing. Professional dedicated recorders also offer superior recording quality, memory size and battery life.

Recording quality is crucial due to the high volume of documents attorneys create. The recordings need to be clear so the transcriptionist does not need to rewind frequently, impacting productivity and accuracy. The powerful microphones in dedicated professional recorders, however, do not diminish battery life. Devices can record for 50 hours before needing a recharge. With that battery life comes abundant memory. Professional dedicated recorders offer up to 32GB of memory just for audio files, which is the equivalent of 352 days of continuous recordings.

Smartphones are part of every professionals’ toolkit, but they are not necessarily the best tool for every job. Rather, a dedicated professional mobile voice recorder should be used in conjunction with a smartphone, tablet or laptop to ensure that information is captured accurately and efficiently to deliver prompt and quality client service.

]]>Ever find yourself wasting time, and getting incredibly annoyed, every time you need to add a section or paragraph symbol in an email, brief, or motion? We’ve all created shortcut keys for these symbols in the past, but they don’t always work in email and they often get stripped every time IT upgrades software or changes my settings.

I’ve always thought that there must be an easier way, and now someone has finally come up with one: the LegalBoard.

LegalBoard is a desktop computer keyboard that has its keys programmed for the symbols and functionality we regularly use in our daily legal practice. Whether you’re in private practice or in-house, LegalBoard saves you time and allows you to work without interruption to insert symbols, footnotes, comments, and common legal reference cites. Additionally, LegalBoard has keys that automatically insert common party names. All of this functionality means you can work more efficiently and without disruption.

How LegalBoard Works

LegalBoard is a traditional keyboard that has pre-programmed keys that work with all Microsoft Windows products, including Word and Outlook. It works in both web based systems as well as the traditionally installed Microsoft products. This means that, unlike most shortcut keys, you do not need to consistently reprogram for different programs or every time there’s an upgrade. Simply plug the keyboard into any USB drive, and it is ready to go.

Using the LegalBoard is almost as easy as installing it. In addition to having keys for the section and paragraph symbols, it allows users to use a key to insert a footnote or comment, and by hitting “Shift” and the footnote or comment key, toggling from the footnote or comment back to where I was in the text is seamless. It allows me to, for example, insert a bullet, change the line spacing and turn track changes on and off with a simple keystroke.

The shortcuts are located where the F1 through F12 keys are, and also in the number pad, and therefore are easy to find. The number pad still works when the keyboard is not in legal mode. The legal keys include italics, underline, bold, find, footnote, comment, small caps, bullet, track changes, line spacing, the section, paragraph, and copyright symbols, and numerous commonly used words and citations. Having all of these accessible with a single keystroke cuts the amount of time needed to write a document. It no longer takes a long process to find and insert a single symbol, and my train of thought isn’t continuously disrupted. I am much more focused and productive.

I also appreciate how I did not lose the functionality of a standard keyboard since the LegalBoard allows me to toggle between the standard mode and legal mode whenever I’d like.

Any Drawbacks?

Not really. Once you learn where the shortcut keys are on the keyboard, the LegalBoard is quite simple. After 5 minutes of playing around, I became familiar and was able to immediately start benefiting from it. And the well-labeled keys make using it intuitive and easy.

Who Should Buy It?

Any legal professional will benefit from this product. Litigators will especially appreciate the citations, symbols, and footnote capabilities. Contract and real estate professionals will like the ability to easily insert bullets and comments without disruption. And in-house counsel who, like me, are asked to do all of these things, will benefit from the wide range of functionality. Having a key for each of the many functions and symbols I use regularly makes writing easier and quicker, which really appealed to me (in fact, I was impressed enough to make a small investment in the company).

]]>https://www.lawtechnologytoday.org/2017/01/legalboards-consumer-review/feed/0To Retain or Replace On Premise Platforms?https://www.lawtechnologytoday.org/2016/11/to-retain-or-replace-on-premise-platforms/
https://www.lawtechnologytoday.org/2016/11/to-retain-or-replace-on-premise-platforms/#respondTue, 08 Nov 2016 13:00:00 +0000http://www.lawtechnologytoday.org/?p=6244This article will look at the current climate of the industry and discuss how to know which path is the right one for your firm.

]]>As it pertains to e-discovery, the market is careful and has been slow to transition from outdated legacy platforms despite knowing that retaining current review software isn’t sustainable. Law firms are staring down two distinct paths: retain platforms that were never built for e-discovery, which means they are lacking the agility in ECA and review that law firm clients are beginning to demand, or replace their current system with an on-premise or SaaS platform meant to support e-discovery. This article will look at the current climate of the industry and discuss how to know which path is the right one for your firm.

Retain

Nearly every small-to-mid-size law firm still relies on platforms developed in the 1990s, which were created for scanned case documents. Since these products were developed before electronically stored information (ESI) was even a consideration, many know these platforms are quickly approaching their end-of-life. But even with that in mind, the jump to the new class of enterprise platforms is a long one. Attempting this leap by deploying a firm wide replacement and risking failure could end poorly for those making that decision—at least, that is the fear. It becomes easier to stay put, see where the majority of the market moves, and then shorten that chasm.

Many of the conversations I have with the firms in this quandary reflect a need to outsource their larger projects and “jam” data into these older platforms while stifling efficiencies. They have also said that doing so keeps their practices focused on the small cases their clients give them and that clients rely on larger, better equipped firms to manage the larger cases. While they might get a larger case a few times a year, the confidence their target clients have in them is mitigated by their limited resources.

The challenge is twofold: choose one of the many cost-effective e-discovery on-premise and SaaS options with varying approaches, or choose an enterprise platform that is “safe,” yet too expensive.

Before we dig in to the two models, it is also important to know your firm’s business focus. Nearly all law firms fall into three categories for how they are using technology and servicing their clients as it pertains to cost: pass all e-discovery processing, hosting, etc., costs through to the client; absorb all hardware and software costs as a “cost of doing business”; or utilize technology to create a profit center. All have their place, but depending on your firms focus, the investments in these platforms have their implications.

Replace With An Updated On-Premise Platform

The gamut of the new guard of on-premise platforms does extend into a range, but they are all closer in cost and efficiencies that one might assume. There are many benefits in creating your own IT environment and managing client data for processing, ECA, review, and production, but many also have concerns as well. Here is a list of items to consider:

Costs: Your firm’s IT staff and resources, hardware, and software costs must be in-line with your firm’s willingness to invest in servicing cases that involve e-discovery.

Client data control: Holding all client data in-house may be important for better management of long-term costs and physical control of data.

Once those considerations are agreed upon, the search for the best solution begins with working with the technology providers and ensuring there will be proper hardware configurations, support of the product, and the team certifications to administer the system. Although newer technology requires certifications and continual education, it can be worth it for firms and the clients they serve.

Generally, on-premise fits the model of either a “cost of doing business” or a profit center, as these are billed directly to the firm.

Replace With SaaS

With many law firms moving their internal software to the cloud, there is already a growing and general acceptance for cloud software and services. In fact, every time any client data is handed off to a service provider for processing and hosting, it is in the cloud. With this confidence in data center security and processes, the next natural step is to consider housing all client data outside of the firm’s data center and software.

Last spring, I wrote an article for LTT outlining the necessary safeguards for all SaaS providers when taking on client data, regardless of the sensitivity. Although the article is certainly a guideline of things to ask your SaaS providers when you are evaluating them, safeguards are generally already in place with your service provider. Many providers, though, prefer to maintain their own infrastructure as it gives better control of client data.

SaaS e-discovery providers have a broader range than the current on-premise platforms in functionality, scalability, and pricing models. Although there are too many differences to list, the approaches each fit the broad legal market. Here is a short rundown of major differences to consider:

Ease of data in and data out: Nearly all provide this functionality with simple drag-and-drop processing, ECA, review ,and production, but make sure it is easy for administrators.

Support: Should some elements of the platform (searching workflows, productions, etc.) require assistance, make sure you have project and case management support to ensure the best outcomes.

Pricing: Models certainly vary, but make sure predictable pricing is available, not off of “expanded data volumes,” or make sure to get a subscription that works for you.

“SaaS models are more prevalent today than they were just five years ago,” says David Gomez, litigation support manager at Smith Moore Leatherwood. “They provide an option for those firms without the necessary or desired infrastructure to move the hosting and support or for those firms transitioning from legacy platforms to utilize their services while they bolster their infrastructure to manage the various aspects of the e-discovery spectrum they choose to do in-house.”

SaaS models will allow firms to use any of the three models of firm business costs, pass through or added firm profit, as there is flexibility in how you structure an agreement with the provider.

“I don’t consider SaaS and in-house options as being mutually exclusive, but complementary,” says Gomez. “As an analogy, you don’t go golfing with a single club, nor do you use your driver on the greens. We identify the need and apply the appropriate tool for that particular case.”

Although the general trend is moving to the cloud, in fact many of the on-premise providers are creating a cloud option. There is value for either path. The decision between on-premise and SaaS is generally impacted by the firm’s agreement with clients on how clients are to be billed. Find what works best for your firm by evaluating the firm’s infrastructure tolerance and how either path serves you and your clients’ best interests.

]]>https://www.lawtechnologytoday.org/2016/11/to-retain-or-replace-on-premise-platforms/feed/0The Brave New World of Screenless Technologyhttps://www.lawtechnologytoday.org/2016/10/the-brave-new-world-of-screenless-technology/
https://www.lawtechnologytoday.org/2016/10/the-brave-new-world-of-screenless-technology/#respondThu, 20 Oct 2016 12:00:00 +0000http://www.lawtechnologytoday.org/?p=6071There have been a plethora of devices introduced lately that are controlled or will be controlled entirely by voice and touch with no visual element.

]]>I was asked the other day by one of my colleagues what’s next for our tablet and smart phone screens. Will they be bigger? Smaller? Do more things? After I thought about it, I told her I thought the next thing wouldn’t be screens or visual at all. Instead it will be all about screenless technology. Voice. Using our voice to control apps and do things we now do with our fingers and eyes.

Lately there have been a plethora of devices that are controlled or will be controlled entirely by voice and touch with no visual element. Earlier this year Amazon came out with Echo. It’s an entirely voice controlled and screenless digital assistant. Echo can do many things: play music, call up Uber, order from Amazon, even turn your lights and HVAC system off and on—all by voice activation only. No screen.

And then Pebble, the first smart watcher maker, announced Pebble Core. The Core is also a screenless device that at least now is marketed primarily to health enthusiasts. But it can play music from Spotify, track your workout and store the data, order Uber (if you get tired) and even has a GPS to tell you where you are—all controlled by voice and touch. You can even program it to send an emergency text when you leave home. Since it connects to Echo, you can use it to do everything an Echo does. Get weather and traffic. Unlock your car. Again, no screen.

And now there’s Airpods, Apple’s serious entry in the blue tooth wireless world. Airpods are cordless and designed to replace the ubiquitous white earbuds that all Apple phones and iPods come with.(Does anyone still buy iPods?) Airpods link to your iPhone and allow you to perform various functions wirelessly. Touch it and you can talk to Siri. Siri can then activate music, make a call, even draft an email for you.

AirPods will have optical sensors and accelerometers, which detect when the AirPods are in your ear or determine when you’re talking. You can use one or both, and they’ll only activate when you’re ready to listen. Remove them from your ears to automatically pause music, or move to one to have a conversation; your music will automatically resume when you put it the other one back. And you don’t need to look or touch a screen.

Why is this important? Like it not, Apple is a trend setter. Like Amazon, Apple is now all in the voice activated world. And while the voice features of Airpods are relatively primitively, much like apps on the original iPhone, they will increase exponentially as technology improves. The average error rate on voice activated and controlled devices is 7%: meaning Siri and Echo understand about 93% of your words. But that’s an average. They do better with some people and worse with others. And they learn from use—the more you use them, the better they get at understanding.

7% is still too high. But when the error rate gets down to the 1% range or less, imagine the possibilities and uses. Imagine a personal assistant that takes notes about your conversations, a helpful researcher, a companion who listens to your problems, and may even suggest a course of action, silently consulting the collective knowledge of experts. With in-ear technology, this assistant can always be connected to you.

And combined with better voice recognition (VR) technology, the uses of voice activation devices will explode. VR will become your password: Want to check bank balance? Ask you device to do it. The bank will recognize your voice which will serve in effect as your password and communicate with you directly all without touching or looking at a screen. Want to dictate an email on your way to work? VR will log you in and allow you to dictate it. It will then read it back and you can correct errors, all without touching a screen.

Check your email and have it read back to you? No problem. Check you Twitter feed? Ask the device to pull it up and read you the highlights. Want to hear more, ask the device to read the whole post to you. Want to prepare a bill? Enter your time via your device and have the bill read back to you to check for errors. Virtually anything you do with your apps now by touching and seeing can be replaced by a voice controlled function. And voice shortcuts could be created that would allow you to even more quickly and efficiently make your apps work.

And there is one more thing. VR and activation technology could allow you to create a virtual transcript of all your conversations and call them up on demand. Creepy? Maybe, but virtual transcripts may not be such a bad thing. How often do disputes arise from “he said, she said” controversies? How often do we fight with other lawyers over what was said in a conversation? Would you like a transcript of your consultation with your Doctor discussing a serious illness and what to do?

But obviously there’s a lot of privacy and ethical issues to be considered. What would the discovery implications be? And how would be speak if we knew everything was being recorded? Would our conversations all sound like depositions? Plus how advertisers might use this. (For a great discussion of the pro and cons of the virtual transcript, there is a great podcast called “Note to Self”; the latest episode is devoted to this issue).

Nevertheless, I’m convinced the use of touch, VR and voice controlled devices will be the next frontier. And instead of all of us looking at our smart phones every idle moment, soon we will all walk around talking to ourselves (so to speak). Wait….not sure that’s an improvement.

]]>https://www.lawtechnologytoday.org/2016/10/the-brave-new-world-of-screenless-technology/feed/0MOBILE ERGONOMICShttps://www.lawtechnologytoday.org/2016/10/mobile-ergonomics/
https://www.lawtechnologytoday.org/2016/10/mobile-ergonomics/#respondThu, 13 Oct 2016 12:00:00 +0000http://www.lawtechnologytoday.org/?p=6064Here's a look at mobile gear that makes it even more convenient to work outside of the office.

]]>Recently, I wrote here at Law Technology Today about my office ergonomics set-up. For this post, I wanted to follow up with gear that I use when not in my office. Like many lawyers, I spend a fair amount of my time on the go. Whether you work on trains, in planes, waiting at court, or at coffee shops, here are some thoughts you can adapt for your work outside of the office.

LAPTOP

Having a laptop is a great way to be productive when away from a desk. I looked for gear that makes it more comfortable and efficient to use. Some of these might make a tablet more comfortable, too: many tablet cases now include keyboards, but perhaps you’d prefer a less heavy case, and a separate keyboard.

TAKE A STAND

First, a stand, to elevate the laptop to a comfortable eye level, so you can sit up straight. First, I tried one that is a large platform on jointed legs (may not be that exact model, but similar). It’s nice for when I want to sit on the floor by the fireplace – which happens regularly in the winter – but was too bulky and heavy to carry around. Next, I tried one that folds up small and unfolds as a tripod (this one or similar). Because I found it doesn’t hold the laptop snugly, it’s now part of my desk set-up: it’s stable enough for that, but if someone bumped my table at a coffee shop, I think it would drop my computer.

Then I found one that folds compactly, holds a laptop securely, and weighs less than either of the others. It’s worked well for almost a year, and while it cost more than the others, I’ve found it to be worth the money. Of course you don’t need to spend money on this: you could carry around a few of your law school casebooks. I think that would be a bit heavy and bulky, but that’s your call.

GET KEYED UP

To make the ergonomic set-up work, you’ll need an external keyboard and either a trackpad or a mouse. If your computer is Bluetooth-capable, I suggest getting wireless versions of each, as having no cables will make it easier to transport and set up. I chose a third-party keyboard that has USB-rechargeable batteries, and I have an Apple trackpad. Choosing a mouse or trackpad seems like a personal decision, based on your preferences, so I’ll just say that I have gotten used to using many of the gestural controls on my laptop, and didn’t want to give those up. An external trackpad is also much less bulky than most mice. One important security note: some non-Bluetooth USB receivers have a security vulnerability, so it seems prudent to use only devices that communicate via Bluetooth.

KEEP IT TO YOURSELF

One piece of equipment I recommend for any attorney doing work outside the office is a privacy screen for your laptop. Years ago, the viewable angle on most screens wasn’t great. Now that most laptop screens are visible over a range of 90° to 120°, you have to consider confidentiality and privacy. Get a high-quality privacy screen, and you can be more confident in protecting the information you’re working on, whether you’re getting tea, on a plane, or at a conference.

GET IT TO GO

You’ll need a way to carry all this. I have a laptop sleeve, but don’t usually use it because my work bags have padded and lined laptop compartments. You may want a sleeve. I bought a case that holds the travel stand, and my keyboard, trackpad, and charger.

I use it for plane travel, but for around town, I generally skip it to keep weight and bulk down. Consider how gentle or rough you are on your gear, and if your bag has pockets to keep the items secure.

OLD SCHOOL

Of course, not all the gear I carry revolves around my laptop. I usually carry my Livescribe 3 smartpen (which I reviewed here, and still use) with the small flip notebook, which I use mostly for client-related notes. I nearly always carry a Moleskine or Field Notes for other notes: they fit in a pocket, and you can sit on them without breaking them.

Do you have questions about the types of gear I’m using, or suggestions? I’d be glad to hear from you in the comments. Or, connect with me on social media (Facebook, Twitter, Google+, LinkedIn, Google Local), or email me at my firm’s Contact Me page. Note that I bought all of the products I’ve tried, and wasn’t paid for my opinions or reviews.